The Surprising Joy of Controversial Conversations

Image by DALL·E 3

Many of us, even those who genuinely value free speech and appreciate a marketplace of ideas where diverse viewpoints can be openly shared, find ourselves hesitating when it comes to engaging in conversations involving potentially divisive topics. Despite our intellectual curiosity and desire to learn about different perspectives, we often have a strong inclination to avoid discussions that might lead to disagreement. This avoidance stems from a desire to prevent discomfort - both for ourselves and others. It's natural to prefer positive interactions, and the prospect of experiencing or causing negative emotions can be a powerful deterrent to engaging in conversations about highly charged subjects.

If you've felt this hesitation, here's some good news! Recent research suggests that discussing potentially divisive topics with people we disagree with is far more enjoyable than many of us would assume.

The studies, conducted by Dr. Kristina Wald, a researcher at the Wharton School, and her colleagues, explored how our expectations about discussing controversial topics compare to our actual experiences. Specifically, the researchers randomly assigned participants to discuss hot-button issues like abortion, gun control, religion, and immigration with other participants who either agreed or disagreed with them on the topic they discussed. Before the discussion, participants completed a questionnaire measuring their expectations regarding the discussion. They were surveyed again after the discussion on how it actually went. 

The researchers found that people consistently underestimated how positive conversations would be, especially when talking to someone with opposing views. Participants expected conversations with those who disagreed with them to be significantly more negative than talks with like-minded individuals. However, the actual experiences were similarly positive regardless of agreement or disagreement.

The researchers propose a few explanations for why our expectations might be off the mark. To begin with, we often rely on oversimplified ideas about groups we don't belong to, which can amplify perceived differences. In fact, it is common for people to assume that those they disagree with hold more extreme positions than they actually do. This tendency leads us to underestimate the shared ground we might have with someone holding different views. Yet, the very nature of conversation tends to uncover areas of agreement as we work to understand each other, often revealing unexpected commonalities.

Additionally, our predictions are influenced by our past experiences - or the lack thereof. By avoiding discussions about disagreements, we miss chances to refine our expectations. We might overlook or fail to recall previous positive encounters when thinking about future conversations. Conversely, we're more prone to engage in talks with those who share our views, giving us a more accurate sense of what to expect from those interactions. This pattern can lead to a growing disparity between our expectations of discussing disagreements and the actual experience of doing so.

Finally, we frequently undervalue the intrinsic benefits of one-on-one conversation as a collaborative activity. These in-person exchanges can create social connections through mutual engagement, sharing personal information, and showing understanding. When anticipating a conversation, we tend to fixate on whether the other person shares our views or not, assuming this will be the main factor in how enjoyable the interaction will be. However, in reality, it's often the nature of the interaction itself—the back-and-forth of a face-to-face dialogue—that plays a bigger role in determining how positive the experience is, regardless of initial agreements or disagreements. 

Consistent with this idea, the research also found that the format of interaction matters. Specifically, in one study, the researchers added a condition in which some participants did not actually have a discussion but instead simply shared their views in a recoreded monologue. Participants who disagreed with one another and shared their views in an exchange of monologues did not find that experience as enjoyable as participants who disagreed with another and had an actual discussion. A real conversation is more fulfilling than just swapping information and opinions.

These findings have important implications for addressing major societal issues like political polarization. By engaging in conversations with those who hold different views, we might not only find some common ground but also correct our misperceptions about each other. Even when we disagree, we can better appreciate that our disagreements don't have to make us miserable or dislike one another. Instead, they can be an opportunity to learn, connect, and take advantage of the strengths of our diverse society.

It's also important to keep in mind that the loudest voices that make us feel like a hopelessly divided people often only represent a small segment of the population. For example, when Pew Research Center examined political content on Twitter (now X), they found that 10 percent of users were responsible for 97 percent of tweets discussing national politics. This reminds us that the perception of widespread, intense disagreement might be exaggerated by a vocal minority, further emphasizing the potential value of engaging in real, face-to-face conversations with a diverse range of people.

In my own experience, I've found that conversations with people I fundamentally disagree with can sometimes be more interesting and enjoyable than talks with like-minded individuals. The key factors often have little to do with our aligned or opposing views, but rather with the quality of the interaction itself—the person's willingness to listen, their tone, their curiosity, their personal experiences, their knowledge on the topic, and the mutual respect we establish. A little humor also goes a long way. Even when discussing important issues, not taking oneself too seriously can significantly enhance the interaction. When these elements come together, even the most contentious topics can lead to unexpectedly positive and illuminating dialogues.

It is worth noting that this research exclusively focused on single conversations between strangers. The controlled research context of these interactions can't fully capture various real-world environments that might make thoughtful discussions between individuals who disagree less likely to be enjoyable. However, importantly, these studies should encourage us to believe that it is possible to have rewarding conversations with people who hold opposing views on the very topics of our disagreements. 

So, the next time you're tempted to shy away from a conversation with someone who holds different views than you, remember that it might be more pleasant and valuable than you expect. By opening ourselves up to these dialogues, we not only expand our own understanding but also contribute to building a more free, tolerant, dynamic, and socially healthy society. 

Have a great weekend!

Clay